Paralyzed since I was 18 years old, I have spent much of the last 30 years thinking about the reasons why the social life of crippled people is so different from those who ambulate on two feet. After reading about the so called Ashley Treatment I decided it was time to write a book about my life as a crippled man. My book, Bad Cripple: A Protest from an Invisible Man, will be published by Counter Punch. I hope my book will completed soon.

Search This Blog

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Playing God and the Ashley Treatment

In Diekema and Fost article, "Ashley Revisited: A Response to Critics", the authors seek to address 25 distinct and substantive ethical arguments that contend the Ashley Treatment is unethical. I was one of the critics supposedly engaged and summarily dismissed. This bothers me but not because I strenuously object to what was done to Ashley. I cannot get this article out my head because there is no effort on the part of Diekema and Fost to really engage their critics. This is frustrating in the extreme. The entire tone of their article is dismissive and to date I have refrained from objecting to how they framed what I wrote in my 2007 article, "Protest from a Bad Cripple", published by Counter Punch. I recently came across a quote from Diekema that has inspired me to directly address what they refer to as "Objection 12 You are playing God".

I did indeed write that Diekema and his deceased colleague, D. Gunther, were caught "playing God". In reply Diekema and Fost argue there are several problems with this argument. First, "if playing God refers to intervening with nature's or God's plan than all of medicine involves playing God". Second, "if we play God in offering certain interventions we also play God when we decide not to intervene". Third, "if God is responsible for Ashley's condition then he is also responsible for creating those with the ability to alter her condition".

Frankly, the reference to "playing God" was a throw away line meant to emphasize a point. And what was the point I was trying to get across? I will quote my next sentence, one that appeared in the second paragraph where I suspect Diekema and Fost stopped reading: "The Ashley Treatment affects not just one girl in Seattle but all people—those with and without a disability. Doctors have established a precedent with Ashley—it is ethically and socially acceptable to mutilate the bodies of disabled people. What Ashley and her doctors have failed to grasp is that all disabled people share a common bond."

In retrospect I could have used a word other than "mutilate" but at the time I wrote the article I was furious. Then, as now, I considered the Ashley Treatment to be ethically questionable at best. My views have not changed appreciably. But to suggest that in some way I object to the Ashley Treatment due to the presence or absence of God is grossly misleading. Even if Diekema and Fost object to what I wrote they could at least direct their comments to substantive issues I raised. For instance, here is paragraph worth delving into:

"In choosing this course of action I consider the parents to be modern day Frankensteins or a perverse Modern Prometheus as Shelley’s 1818 classic novel was subtitled. In coining the term the Ashley Treatment and Pillow Angel doctors have not only over reached the bounds of ethics in medicine but sent a shot across the bow of every disabled person in American society. The message is very clear: disabled people are not human—they are profoundly flawed and extreme measures will be taken to transform their bodies. Consent is not necessary as the mere presence of disabled people, particularly those like Ashley with a profound mental disability, is inherently unacceptable. Modern science however has come to the rescue and doctors have the technology and know how to prevent her from becoming Frankenstein--a developmentally disabled adult."

To their credit Diekema and Fost may have understood my point as they wrote "this argument is trying to convey the sense that decisions of this kind are arrogant". Yes, arrogant is a word that I think nicely fits Diekema and in particular Fost. They are arrogant in a way that gives doctors a bad reputation. Apparently decisions that led to the Ashley Treatment can "easily be made in humility". They suggest a "theological lens through which to view decisions like those made on behalf of Ashley is the notion of stewardship". Humility is about the last word I would associate Diekema and Fost with. But the notion of "stewardship" is likely closer to the truth. It is possible Diekema and Fost consider themselves stewards--stewards of the less fortunate. People like Ashley that don't talk back. How convenient for them. What they apparently don't like is when those they theoretically "steward", people like me, talk back. Let me be clear: they are the experts when it comes to caring for the human body. In contrast, my expertise lies in the cultural construction of disability and it ramifications. Ashley is impacted by her disability as am I. Yes, my cognitive ability is not impaired but that does not mean the bias, stigma, and social isolation I experience is any different from what Ashley and her family encounter. There are social solutions to this that Ashley's family and her doctors do not want to consider. This thought echoes a recent comment made by N. Tan ad I. Brassington in their article "Agency, Duties, and the Ashley Treatment" published in the Journal of Medical ethics (November 2009): "In a sense the wider Ashley Treatment-taking into account that it also involved a hysterectomy, appendectomy and breast bud removal to protect against problems of as yet unknown severity that might not appear anyway—might represent less of an attempt to meet the challenges of Ashley’s condition than an attempt not to have to meet them. At the very least, it is not obvious that the Ashley treatment was the only or even the best response to the challenge of caring for her. Again, it is not clear that it would be acceptable to deal with most patients in this way: so, again, we might want to know whether and what different rules apply here".

What indeed are the rules that apply here? If the Ashley Treatment would not be considered for a so called normal child why are they socially and medically acceptable for Ashley? This is a discussion worth entering into, one Diekema and Fost have avoided via quotes taken out of context. But I suspect as Ashley's humble "stewards" they need not discuss such matters with a pesky crippled scholar such as myself. This is unfortunate as we people with a disability have much to say and share a lot in common with Ashley. She may lack the agency to understand such a debate but it does affect her life as well as mine. I wish Diekema and Fost were willing to listen an engage in this debate.

2 comments:

Any idiomatic dictionary will define "playing God" as meaning "arrogance"...that they admitted they understood what was said after a pseudo theological analysis of the expression simply proves your point. In the end, does their dismissal of valid critique represents arrogance or cowardice? I am not sure.

I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could read what I wrote in Counter Punch and reduce it to as you put it a pseudo theological analysis. This is so misleading it boggles my mind. Diekema and Fost have a penchant for doing this to all critics when it pertains to the Ashley Treatment. Why they are unable or unwilling to engage critics is troubling as it does not appear to characterize other aspects of their work. How this escaped the editors of AJOB is strange.